The New Grämlins

[Titus Pullo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1271103180' post='2257615']
Perhaps, then, you should check your assumptions at the door.
[/quote]
It's called a definition, not an assumption. Though, with your dictionary I suppose I might be confused as well.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='The Warrior' date='12 April 2010 - 01:17 PM' timestamp='1271103422' post='2257622']
So let me recap: You would never expect anybody to unconditionally surrender? And you have just stated that you would never accept such a term either?

It appears to me that you sir have just stated that you are casting aside the codex that you continually insist that you follow. If you would not accept this term if given to you, yet you offer the term to us, you are indeed offering a term that you would not accept and therefore break your codex.
[/quote]


What I stated was that I would never "accept whatever terms were offered"
If terms are eventually offered and IRON does not accept them that is their prerogative. Certainly after demilitarizing it may place them in a different position as the "bargaining table" if you will and it opens them up to a different risk.
But there is no reason why IRON couldn't retrain soldiers, tanks, aircraft, CM etc very quickly should they find terms unacceptable.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='peron' date='12 April 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1271103253' post='2257616']
When Unconditional Surrender contains a demilitarizing term before other terms are offered you are left with accepting what is offered or facing utter destruction with your nations demilitarized and out of PM. So no, they aren't two different things.
[/quote]

So your contention is that once you have dismissed military that you are permanently helpless? It is amazing then, to me, that when people are hit by nukes which destroy most of their soldiers and planes that they can ever recover to continue fighting!

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1271103762' post='2257632']
What I stated was that I would never "accept whatever terms were offered"
If terms are eventually offered and IRON does not accept them that is their prerogative. [b]Certainly after demilitarizing it may place them in a different position as the "bargaining table" if you will and it opens them up to a different risk.[/b]
But there is no reason why IRON couldn't retrain soldiers, tanks, aircraft, CM etc very quickly should they find terms unacceptable.[/quote]

As you have stated here, you are truly giving us no option. That is not an option and I venture a guess that was it you being asked to unconditionally surrender, you would reject this term.

And as it stands right now we still have a "mystery box" option on the table. Your demilitarization terms could very well include the destruction of our military improvements and possibly wonders. If that were the case, re-militarizing for us really could not happen. Doesn't matter how many soldiers, tanks or nukes you try to buy back if you have no GC's, barracks, satellites or MP's.

Edited April 12, 2010 by The Warrior

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1271102902' post='2257612']
Of course not, and I'd never expect anybody else to do so either.
"Unconditionally surrender" and "willing to accept whatever peace terms they give you" are two different, and separable, things.
[/quote]

Definition 1: Unconditional surrender: The surrender of a military force or nation without being able to set any limits on the subsequent actions of the victorious power.

http://www.answers.com/topic/unconditional-surrender

Definition 2: unconditional surrender: the surrender of a military force or nation without being able to set any limits on the subsequent actions of the victorious power.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O63-unconditionalsurrender.html


My personal experience of "Unconditional surrender" is surrender without conditions, except for those provided for in international law set by the UN. Since we have no international law in CN it follows that Unconditional surrender is: Surrender without being able to set any limits on the subsequent actions of Gremlins. Of course its completely idiotic for Gremlins to think it can practically enforce this in CN, but then to claim that Ramirus's actions are logical would be a far stretch.

I suggest that you get yourself informed as to what unconditional surrender is before you try and tangle the meaning of the term in rhetoric in order to detract attention from what your leader is actually trying to do here.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1271103762' post='2257632']
What I stated was that I would never "accept whatever terms were offered"
If terms are eventually offered and IRON does not accept them that is their prerogative. Certainly after demilitarizing it may place them in a different position as the "bargaining table" if you will and it opens them up to a different risk.
But there is no reason why IRON couldn't retrain soldiers, tanks, aircraft, CM etc very quickly should they find terms unacceptable.
[/quote]
You missed how an unconditional surrender doesn't allow one to do that. You surrender unconditionally, you are surrendered no matter what. Look it up.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1271103888' post='2257636']
So your contention is that once you have dismissed military that you are permanently helpless? It is amazing then, to me, that when people are hit by nukes which destroy most of their soldiers and planes that they can ever recover to continue fighting!
[/quote]
Oh, you would just be glad to have that top tier of IRON out of PM, now wouldn't you

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1271103762' post='2257632']
What I stated was that I would never "accept whatever terms were offered"
If terms are eventually offered and IRON does not accept them that is their prerogative. Certainly after demilitarizing it may place them in a different position as the "bargaining table" if you will and it opens them up to a different risk.
But there is no reason why IRON couldn't retrain soldiers, tanks, aircraft, CM etc very quickly should they find terms unacceptable.
[/quote]
Again with the deflection from the real point, it's not about soldiers, tanks, aircraft, and CM's. This is about top tier in peace mode and nukes; it's rather funny you fail to mention them in your statement. You are being intentionally obtuse to the point of stupidity now.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1271102902' post='2257612']

"Unconditionally surrender" [/quote]
[quote]
and "willing to accept whatever peace terms they give you" are two different, and separable, things.
[/quote]

What do these two things mean for you? (by which I mean your alliance)

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='12 April 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1271104099' post='2257642']
Oh, you would just be glad to have that top tier of IRON out of PM, now wouldn't you
[/quote]

I would love that, it would change the bargaining table quite a bit wouldn't it...

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1271104392' post='2257646']
I would love that, it would change the bargaining table quite a bit wouldn't it...
[/quote]
and this is exactly why you won't get it

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='12 April 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1271104342' post='2257643']
Again with the deflection from the real point, it's not about soldiers, tanks, aircraft, and CM's. This is about top tier in peace mode and nukes; it's rather funny you fail to mention them in your statement. You are being intentionally obtuse to the point of stupidity now.
[/quote]

Not to the point of stupidity but certainly to the point of strategy.
From my perspective the strategic merit of our position is obvious.
You know that too; just because everybody else wants to get hung-up on buzzwords doesn't mean you should overlook the logical aspect of the demand.
There is, in fact, method to the "madness" and you know it. You simply don't like it (which is understandable)

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1271104565' post='2257648']
Not to the point of stupidity but certainly to the point of strategy.
From my perspective the strategic merit of our position is obvious.
You know that too; just because everybody else wants to get hung-up on buzzwords doesn't mean you should overlook the logical aspect of the demand.
There is, in fact, method to the "madness" and you know it. You simply don't like it (which is understandable)
[/quote]
[i]Nobody[/i] likes it.

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1271104565' post='2257648']
Not to the point of stupidity but certainly to the point of strategy.
[/quote]

I'd make the argument that demanding this term and pissing off the rest of CN is not a very good strategy. Re-think things, or at least... try thinking next time.

Edited April 12, 2010 by The Warrior

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='12 April 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1271104534' post='2257647']
and this is exactly why you won't get it
[/quote]

Well then we're at the same impasse. We're apparently not interested in "negotiating" unless we have an ever more definite and clear strategic upper hand.

You see, you [b]can[/b] connect the dots!

[Heft]

"Unconditional surrender" and "demilitarize while we discuss peace" are two very different and entirely unrelated ideas. They're both dumb and no one would be expected to actually go accept either, but they are certainly not the same thing.

So Gramlins are still making things up as we go along instead of actually taking any steps to resolve (or even properly clarify) the issue.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='12 April 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1271104376' post='2257644']
What do these two things mean for you? (by which I mean your alliance)
[/quote]

I'm in no position to speak on behalf of my alliance but I'll gladly tell you what it means to [b]me[/b] but I don't think that interests you.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1271103762' post='2257632']
What I stated was that I would never "accept whatever terms were offered"
If terms are eventually offered and IRON does not accept them that is their prerogative. Certainly after demilitarizing it may place them in a different position as the "bargaining table" if you will and it opens them up to a different risk.
But there is no reason why IRON couldn't retrain soldiers, tanks, aircraft, CM etc very quickly should they find terms unacceptable.
[/quote]

Except for the part where we would have waived our sovereign right to do so by unconditionally surrendering, in fact we would have given you our sovereignty completely. Unlike Gremlins we still believe in honouring our word and we will not make you a promise we could never ever hope to deliver on. That is indeed our prerogative it does not however make your demands any more justifiable.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1271103888' post='2257636']
So your contention is that once you have dismissed military that you are permanently helpless? It is amazing then, to me, that when people are hit by nukes which destroy most of their soldiers and planes that they can ever recover to continue fighting!
[/quote]

Our contention is that we are not willing to surrender when we do not know what fate awaits us. I would also state that your alliance grossly overrates itself, you are not indestructible and we are not scared of you. Continue on this path and we will rip you apart pixel by pixel until you are defeated, I give you my word on that.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1271104777' post='2257653']
Well then we're at the same impasse. We're apparently not interested in "negotiating" unless we have an ever more definite and clear strategic upper hand.

You see, you [b]can[/b] connect the dots!
[/quote]
You know what would give you an even bigger strategic edge? Having them decomission all of their Wonders before you'll negotiate. It would remove their WRC's tech boosting, lower their airforce numbers, decrease their GA odds, decrease their population amount, increase their bills. You should add that into your demands. It's logically sound.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1271104777' post='2257653']
Well then we're at the same impasse. We're apparently not interested in "negotiating" unless we have an ever more definite and clear strategic upper hand.

You see, you [b]can[/b] connect the dots!
[/quote]

So let me see if I get it right
You want us to make something that will only weaken our bargaining position and gain nothing to us?
I am trying really hard to stay respectful and everything, but... well, can you explain to us the thinking process that led you to assume that there any chance that we would agree to that?

Edited April 12, 2010 by Golan 1st

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='12 April 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1271104921' post='2257661']
You know what would give you an even bigger strategic edge? Having them decomission all of their Wonders before you'll negotiate. It would remove their WRC's tech boosting, lower their airforce numbers, decrease their GA odds, decrease their population amount, increase their bills. You should add that into your demands. It's logically sound.
[/quote]


Logically sound but morally bankrupt.
Now, of course, the basis of this entire thread is that your morals differ from mine so we're not going to progress on that front.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='12 April 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1271105036' post='2257663']
So let me see if I get it right
You want us to make something that will only weaken our bargaining position and gain nothing to us?
I am trying really hard to stay respectful and everything, but... well, can you explain to us the thinking process that led you to assume that there any chance that we would agree to that?
[/quote]

I want you to voluntarily weaken your position [b]so that you may be allowed a seat[/b] at the table.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1271105156' post='2257666']
I want you to voluntarily weaken your position [b]so that you may be allowed a seat[/b] at the table.
[/quote]

And that is why you are in dreamland and are going to get yourself rolled. Bravo.

[ironchef]

[quote name='Titus Pullo' date='12 April 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1271102602' post='2257606']
I must say this is one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time. However, instead of bolstering the statistical might of gRAM's only ally (MHA) it would be prudent to choose other alliances to assist. In fact, the recent peace terms mean that the surrendering parties will need a great deal of tech dealers from whom they may purchase tech on the victor's behalf. I feel it would be more wise to assist TOP and co. in getting their reps paid off quickly.
[/quote]

True true, I was not thinking in terms of TOP and the rest of us in need of tech deals. As for MHA being an ally of gRAM's, yes they are but they are a good alliance to deal with in terms of moving tech. I'm sure there are others out there that are as good if not better but as I'm more the military type and not so much into finance I have not done many alliance wide tech deals.

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1271105156' post='2257666']
We want you to voluntarily weaken your position [b]so that you will never recover and be destroyed.[/b]
[/quote]

Amiright?

Edited April 12, 2010 by The Warrior